Many people believe that history is simply a collection of facts about
the past; these facts are discovered by historians, taught by teachers,
and learned by students. But this is incorrect. My work in philosophy
of education focuses on understanding knowledge; in this particular research
project, I develop a better and more educationally useful conception of
knowledge of history. I show that historical facts are always arranged
into stories, that these stories are interpretations of history, and that
these interpretations are more firmly grounded than mere speculations
or subjective opinions. That conception makes it clear that students should
be interpreters of history, just like professional historians. It also,
then, helps us think about what history to teach and how to teach it -
and most importantly, why.

What are the goals of teaching history? Obviously, we want to transmit
some basic facts about the past. But what else? Do we want students in
history classes in high schools or colleges to be able to perform the
kind of historical investigations that professionals do? In other words,
do we want them to be able to interpret history?

The answer depends on how we understand the process of historical interpretation.
For example, some people assume that history is simply what happened in
the past, so the only goal of studying history is to know historical facts.
They acknowledge that historians often spend long hours in dusty archives,
painstakingly poring over documents in order to discover the truth. But
if interpreting history involves endless digging in archives, why should
we want students to do be able to do that?

On the other hand, other people notice that different historians write
radically different accounts of the same events. There are some things
about the past that either happened or didn't happen, of course. But these
are just isolated facts, which are never enough to determine whether the
story should be an optimistic or a pessimistic one, for example. So they
conclude that historians always force the facts to fit whatever kind of
story they want to tell. But if interpreting history means imposing a
subjective story on the past, again, why should we want students to be
able to do that?

In my research, I defend an alternative view. But rather than studying
what particular historians or students do, I present philosophical arguments
about the conceptual foundations of history. I show that, on the one hand,
it is true that historians always approach their research with certain
preconceptions. For example, they must have preconceptions about what
events are important in a particular period, about what kinds of evidence
they are looking for, or indeed about the overall plot structure of the
story. But on the other hand, it is also true that those preconceptions
sometimes change when confronted with contradictory evidence. This is
why interpretive judgments are not merely subjective.

According to this conception of historical interpretation, it makes sense
that, indeed, students should be interpreters of history. Students, just
like professionals, always come to their subject with certain preconceptions,
even in areas about which they know quite little. So, as they engage with
the material - encountering new sources or other accounts - they continually
re-interpret and re-compose their own stories about the past. Professionals
work with a much more specialized focus, of course. And professionals
are typically better interpreters than students are. Fundamentally, however,
they are both engaged in the same process of interpretation.

Of course, there is one very significant difference: someone else, a
teacher, is in charge of guiding students' interpretive experiences. So
this conception contributes to history education by helping us think about
what we teach (curriculum) as well as how we teach (pedagogy). We should
abandon the idea of 'covering' a period of history or conveying masses
of information. Instead, we first need to understand the preconceptions
with which students arrive in the classroom, and then determine what kinds
of classroom experiences are likely to foster more comprehensive and more
responsible interpretations. And most importantly, this conception helps
us think about the deepest goal of history education: nurturing the capabilities
that make students, like professionals, responsible interpreters of history.
As I develop this argument, I call these traits the "interpretive
virtues;" the term indicates that they are personal qualities rather
than mere academic skills. Thus, history courses can help develop the
interpretive virtues by providing the right kinds of interpretive experiences,
but these virtues can also be applied, then, to many areas of life.